/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11559563
Earth is flat

Sexy F9...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4TXCZG_NEY

>>11559563
Remember to exercise or you’re a disgusting piece of shit

Boing btfo

>>11559563
Mother fuckers, space X is a winner.

What is a common misconception of space and space flight that bothers you the most?

pic unrelated

What is a common misconception of space and space flight that bothers you the most?

reposted because last pic may have been considered nsfw

>>11559767
that it's somehow mutually exclusive with climate change research

>>11559767
That nasa is doing something

>>11559563
(I'll be damned if I waste a speculative shitpost on the dead thread)

I was just thinking about Falcon Heavy and how they don't intend to go through the process of man-rating it because of Starship coming up. There might be a pretty significant gap where Starship isn't yet man-rated/still working out kinks but commercial heavy lift flights with humans on board would be desirable. I could see some public money grumbling about SLS ferrying people while the less capable but still suitable FH sits in the background racking up Space Force satellite launches at a tenth the price. I wonder if the push to get Artemis rolling might include some clearing of NASA man-rating red tape.

What would be really funny is if Elon decides to be a dick, dust off Grey Dragon, and do a lap of the Moon a month before the first Artemis astronauts take off.

>>11559767
When people don't understand that altitude doesn't equal orbit. Kind of a mixed bag though because I get to feel like a smug galaxy brain explaining it.

>>11559786
I recall some speculation that if Starship takes a while to be man-rated, then the crew Starship could still be launched into LEO with no crew and would be serviced by Dragon 2 via Falcon 9.

>>11559786
I thought falcon heavy wasn't man rated so SLS has a reason to exist

Manned starship is going to take a while. I expect more crashes than the falcon 9

>>11559798
>I thought falcon heavy wasn't man rated so SLS has a reason to exist

>>11559767
Space research isn't profitable, I'm in a cucked nation that can't into space because the general public doesn't understand it's a profitable industry.

>>11559808
>why are we paying more for a rocket that isn't done
>there are no other crew rated rockets we can use

>>11559809
That's every nation. Granted, space research itself currently isn't actually profitable in a direct sense, but the general public around the world is incapable of understanding that the secondary economic benefits are important too.

>>11559786
Nasa simply would not allow them to do a grey dragon mission
Certainly not before the SLS does it

That’s why man rating is a joke even after 100 successful launches

>>11559823
I have no idea where you got that idea but no. Spacex decided against man-rating FH because they figured that it would be an unnecessary expense with Starship coming along a few years later anyway.

Elon's actually said that he thinks FH was kind of a mistake- more or less that it was doomed to end up the awkward neglected middle child between F9 and Starship because of development delays and cost. I think he's going to end up wrong on that count because Starship will take longer than projected. FH has the potential to be the workhorse of Artemis if a couple key decisions are made.

>>11559825
Why are we dumping money down holes doing “research” that has no economic return? Where are the actual serious prospecting missions?

>>11559845
NASA doesn't have that kind of pull with the FAA. Spacex needs the FAA's green light and informed consent from the passengers.

>>11559845
>Nasa simply would not allow them to do a grey dragon mission

SpaceX could land people on the moon and there’s literally nothing NASA could do about it. They don’t even have to be consulted.

>>11559850
Every single probe looking at the surface of an object in the solar system has been a prospecting mission

>>11559852
>>11559853
So you say
Until the ULA sniper strikes again

>>11559850
It's a long term return, that is why many people fail to see it.
All that money pumped into ballistic missiles in the '40s and '50 lead to launch vehicles in the '60s which lead to improvements and cost reductions that made commercial space viable in the '80 to today where continued cost reduction makes more things economically viable.
Money spent on research today doesn't make you money tomorrow but there is a good chance it'll make you huge sums eventually.

>>11559847
That's the official story but I still jest that politics went into it

They did dragon and dragon 2 because nasa asked for commercial crew. But once you start making something they didn't ask for, and present a replacement for their jobs program, they can easily make a way to not work with you. SLS is a hostage situation. Maybe that went into the reasoning of starship, to skip past SLS's capability entirely so you can't possibly refuse it.

Can’t wait until corporations replace inefficient governments. The future is private.

>>11559869
New Glenn directly competes with SLS but Bezos is much better at the political game than Musk so he'll get contracts thanks to the sub-contractors they are using for parts.

Congrats on this. Seriously.

>>11559786
Fuck I love the FH. I'll never forget the hype of the test flight live stream. That gorgeous liftoff on a sunny blue-sky day, Life on Mars playing in the actual stream, the boosters coming down in the same shot. I wish Bowie could have been alive for that, I wonder what he would have thought.

>>11559869
And it’s why they dumped all the extra capabilities they wanted to do like hovering
Since nasa didn’t want it and essentially forced them to get rid of it

>>11559869
>>11559876
Man, I feel like the winds might have shifted pretty strong in Spacex's favor recently. The absolute thrashing that Boing got compared to the praise toward Spacex in that Gateway Logistics Services document was a fucking shock. If that trend continues and NASA keeps shaking off the oldspace cobwebs, we might get to see some wild shit.

>>11559880
Pure, distilled kinography

>tfw the Artemis program could be entirely completed with F9 launches and modular ships assembled in LEO for a fraction of the SLS development costs
>10-20 F9 launches per SLS by cost, and the F9 can do ~17 tons to LEO on booster reuse
>Even a Mars program with F9 makes perfect financial sense
God, it hurts. NASA's current rocket development and launch budget put exclusively towards F9 launches could revolutionize space travel. Is this how Zubrin feels?

>>11559880
That first Falcon Heavy launch was what brought my interest in space flight back. After growing up reading about all the cancelled ambitious projects before me and then seeing Constellation and Shuttle being cancelled made me think that nothing interesting in space flight would happen in my lifetime. I just sort of gave up keeping track of space flight. But seeing those boosters land and then later learning about what SpaceX has done gave me hope again.

>>11559909
I won't be convinced until all the bailouts are over with, if Boeing gets even half of the $60b they are asking for they will get some contracts to go along with it.

>>11559929
>NASA's current rocket development and launch budget put exclusively towards F9 launches could revolutionize space travel.
I think that would be a bad idea. SpaceX should not have a monopoly. Instead NASA should devote it's rocket development and launch budget to encourage more providers to reusable and cheaper launchers. Stop making new contracts for expendable rockets, and requiring them to either be reusable or be making steps towards being reusable.

>>11559933
Exactly the same here bro

>>11559941
If I was running the show I would be offering funding to develop launch systems that are cheaper than existing vehicles in the same class.
If you can self fund a feasibility study and find you can make a Small-lift, Medium-lift, Heavy-lift or Super-heavy lift vehicle cheaper per launch than what we currently have I'll bankroll it.
I would also force co-operation on vehicles, if someone can develop a cheaper stage for your rocket you have to work with them on integration.

>>11559929
But then you ask the question, what is the point of the Artemis and Orion and gateway and whatever
When you can just pay Spacex for Dragon, a long duration habitat, an expanded fuel tank Dragon for the ascent, solar panel has, etc

Assemble in orbit and you are done
No need for a decade long program just launch several cheap modules with redundancy.

>>11559914
I love that people are still posting that picture I made

>>11559961
It's always fun to be reminded that thunderf00t is being BTFO.

>>11559964
I don't care about hm being wrong, everyone is. What makes me laugh is he can't admit it.

>>11559954
If the launch vehicles are cheap and reusable then there is no purpose to any vehicle under super heavy

Add a kicker stage to insert satellites into meme orbits if necessary

>>11559969
If the payload mass fraction is too low the cost effectiveness goes out the window. Better to have a ~2 ton to LEO vehicle launch a 1 ton payload than using a ~50 ton to LEO vehicle for the same job.

>>11559979
Your 2 ton vehicle costs just as much as a 50 ton vehicle, it still needs a production line and has no possibility for reuse.

>>11559992
True but it isn't like re-using a Super-Heavy is free and we are yet to see a recovered second stage.
I'm willing to bet a 3 stage solid with a liquid bus can be made cheaper than a super-heavy upper stage.

>>11559941
Pussyfooting around and wringing your hands over the consequences of favoring the objectively superior launch vehicle is what prevents results and wastes time. Of course you wouldn't want to blind yourself to potentially better alternatives, but handholding oldspace into the new era is criminal- they should recognize the need to adapt on their own, and do it quickly, or die.

>>11559955
You wouldn't want to just go through Spacex for everything, unless they genuinely had the best proposal for every component of the mission- and they likely wouldn't. But yeah- cheap, robust, and modular would be the name of the game. Most of the hardware already exists.

FHeavy could send a lander to the moon. That could then return enough moon rock and dust, to turn a profit. Starting bids at $50,000 per gram.

>>11559955
Aerospace Defense subsidizing.

>>11559961
It always gives me a chuckle when I see it anon, thanks. Can't stand that fucking faggot.

>>11559693
Based boing poster every fucking time

>>11559914
Is this thunderf00t?

>>11560147
bingo

>>11559798
Why don't they do jurisdiction shopping with that? ITAR?
Plenty of countries would love that shit domestically.
Getting rated is a fucking political football more than an engineering matter.

>>11560156
Wonder how much time and energy he spends being pissy at Musk...

So Boca Chica is still just shitting out starship parts eh? It's only been like 2wk in the making but SN4 is almost ready for pressure tests at least. And this is with a fluid design and lots of prototype building methods/tools/jigs

>>11560170
SN5 also has a substantial amount of parts already done. The progress is fucking amazing.

>>11560164
The rating only matters for NASA missions. You can fly people in anything if you have the informed consent of the passengers and the FAA is convinced you won't fuck up anybody on the ground. For example I refer you Mad Mike Hughes and his recent encounter with the consequences of not checking your staging.

>>11560170
The fact that they could salvage the bottom from SN3 was a major bonus, that's where a lot of complicated shit is.

Still think they should explosively form the bulkheads

>>11560166
Musks mere existence causes him to seethe.

>NOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CANT JUST INVENT NEW TECHNOLOGY EVERYTHING HAS ALREADY BEEN TRIED AND TESTED REEEEEEEEE

>>11560186
I think they should just press them from a single sheet desu. They could produce hundreds a day all perfectly the same no problem that way.

>>11559798
No need to manrate the Heavy, launch crew on 9, launch the rest on Heavy, dock in LEO and off you go.

>>11559809
This.

>>11560202
30x type stainless they use doesn't allow that much deformation or they would start doing it long ago. That's also the reason why cybertruck looks like low-poly 3d model from 90s game.

>>>/wsg/3384853

>>11560178
Assuming that wouldn’t be changed if people were actually flying in nonmanrated vehicles

>>11559786
Reminder that it was once thought that there would be a minimal gap in US manned rockets (ie. Shuttle to Orion). Elon thinking that there would be no gap between Dragon 2 and Starship is wishful thinking.

>>11559880
I’ve watched loads of SpaceX launches prior to the test flight, and I remember them clocking about 20,000 views max. Then I remember watching the next flight afterwards and there was something like 120,000 watching for some shitty satellite launch, and basically every launch after that. I like to think that the test flight had a real impact on public perception in space like >>11559933

>>11560369
Lul not even comparable.

>>11560369
The falcon 9 will probably fly for decades to come.
My opinion is that starship will be a cargo lifter anyway and wont actually transport people from earth to LEO because no abort system.

>>11560468
Muh abort system

>>11560468
Its hard to imagine these prototypes ever leading to something human rated but the 75% of the brief is mass human transport.

>>11560491
The Atlas and Titan were ICBMs. We strapped people to the top of those and sent them into orbit.

>>11560491
Hard to imagine the shuttle was ever human rated yet here we are.

>>11559777
This. I'm a climate activist and I hate getting shit from my lefty friends for being passionate about spacefare.

>>11559767
The whole "we need to fix this world first" bullshit they keep spouting to drag us back in the crab bucket.
No, this world is fucked and the sooner we stop having just this one to rely on, the sooner it will have an actual chance of unfucking itself.

>>11559767
that you can change orbits freely, just like changing lanes on the highway

>>11560476
you would shit your pants and run away like a little bitch if you had to ride a starship up to space.

>>11560544
Project harder

>>11559941
>Stop making new contracts for expendable rockets
They don't even need to do that. The cost savings alone will cause expendable space companies to die off, now that we have one company that has made reusability work and is now working on its second generation.
>inb4 I don't understand this reusable space company meme
>>11559954
>launch systems that are cheaper
This is the real game-changing innovation of SpaceX that people constantly overlook. But you're not going to get that from NASA because it's under the control of Congress and the SIC.
>>11560369

>Elon thinking that there would be no gap between Dragon 2 and Starship is wishful thinking.
Reminder that the gap doesn't even begin until the first crew goes up.

>>11560544
If there was an abort system though you would calmly board with a happy smile on your face.
Got it.

>>11560551
>They don't even need to do that. The cost savings alone will cause expendable space companies to die off
Not if those expendable space companies are close friends with the government.

>>11560510
Climate change is good. Fuck the cold.

>>11560919
>climate change will uniformly result in increased average ground temperatures throughout the year everywhere on Earth
no

>>11560982
It will if it warms enough.

>>11560919
too hot is 1000000x worse than too cold

>>11560994
Nah the cold is worse. I’m comfy at 90’ Fahrenheit if I’m naked.

>>11561009
You can put more clothes on to get warm
you're limited in how much you can take off to get cold

>>11561019
I’ll just get a fan

>>11561019
How much clothes can I put on my eyes, mouth, nose and ears?

>>11559936
>trump 1st year
>tells boeing to make a cheaper air force one
>trump 4th year
>we have so save boeing

>>11560369
The writing had always been on the wall that the shuttle was shit though, and the shuttle fleet wasn't fixable. Dragon 2 is should something be wrong with it.

>>11560476
I think you have to consider an abort system just for political reasons. If you could do one on the shuttle it would've saved it a lot of flack. Starship will have to make a shitload of flights to no longer be considered an experimental vehicle. The likelyhood that something goes wrong at launch even one time is pretty high.

>>11561028
Balaclava for the face, goggles for the eyes
Earmuffs are good if you don't have to listen to anyone
and if you want to flex on cloth wearing peasants, wear a full head padded helmet

>>11560516
I hate that argumentation, and they even frame their argument in such a way that makes you look terrible if you try to refute them.

>>11561091
Yeah, don't you fucking dare get out of the crab bucket.

>>11560516
>>11561091
Just ask what would happen if nations decide to forgo sailing because they had problems

>>11561133
Don't even bother trying to use logic. They'd just say that would have been great because then we wouldn't have had colonization or some bullshit like that.
You can't argue with the brain damaged.

>>11561133
Sailing is not and never was that expensive

>>11561141
tfw I was watching Star Trek with my gf and she unironically said "you have to admit, the borg created a utopian society"

>>11561141
Colonization is good. Scientifically and technologically developed societies with denser populations are simply better than less developed and less populated societies. They have every right to destroy their inferior way of life.

>>11561149
I wouldn't call it good or bad, it's just inevitable. One stronger culture overrides a weaker one.

>>11561144
What episode was this? Bizarre.

>>11561143
Sailing is free. Harbouring and maintaining your boat is pretty expensive.

>>11561144
Eat her ass

>>11561144
The Borg got shit done, but it must have been boring.

>>11561133
I don't think that would work, because they would lean more on their emotional tugging that money for exploration is stealing money from the poor and misfortuned.

>>11561143
It probably was very expensive during the early days of sail when a month long trip would be daunting.

>>11561144
TBF one of the scary things about the Borg is that they are a kind of utopian society. There's no conflict within the collective. Everyone is cared for and housed. There's no unemployment. Everything is used at the maximum efficiency possible. You just have to sell your soul to join.

>>11561143
Do you really know this or is it just a guesstimate?

Isn't NASA's budget around 1% of GDP? That's a lot of money but I don't think funding expeditions to other continents would be so cheap either. And the argument against isn't an argument based on proportion, it's on principle. As in we can't spend a penny on space exploration until we are a utopia.

>>11561166
Souls don’t exist so joining the Borg sounds free

>>11561166
>I don't think that would work, because they would lean more on their emotional tugging that money for exploration is stealing money from the poor and misfortuned.

Well it was, but humanity ultimately benefited by having the resources of multiple continents

Tell them by not exploring space, they are selfishly depriving future generations

>>11561166
Poor people are retards

>>11561167
The only number I know off the top of my head is 2015, because I pulled that out for a comparison for welfare budgets. It was $18bn. It's hovering around that number. Trump wanted $22bn or something.

>>11560476
>NASA runs first crewed vehicle with extremely limited abort capability
>kills 13 astronaughts and 1 civilian
They won't risk that again because of the PR hit.

>>11561193
This is why we need independent corporations to run missions.
>There's only a 1% chance that you'll die!
If you get blowed up, it's because you were an adventure seeker, and it's not a national tragedy.

>>11561213
But real AMERICAN companies work closely with the government to ensure that their launches are QUALITY and SAFE for the betterment of AMERICA. A filthy FOREIGN company like SpaceX does not care about this country and would expend AMERICAN LIVES in their filthy pursuit of profit and (SLS forgive me) PROPELLANT D*P*TS. This is why that FOREIGN company should be nationalized for the safety and security of the AMERICAN PEOPLE.

>https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/04/13/bridenstine-says-crew-dragon-could-launch-with-astronauts-at-end-of-may/
>SpaceX Commercial Crew will fly at end of May, according to NASA Admin Jim Bridenstine.

>>11561238
>tfw Dragon 2 will carry crew at the end of May
>tfw Boeing Test Flight Orbital 2 will be in October

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO5ZWnqdyLw
Video of SpaceX Demo-2 Crew training.

>laggy VR headset
NASA can't afford a proper GPU for VR? LMAO

>>11561133
This is a dumb counterargument, People never sailed to find new lands to run away to they sailed to find an easier route to known lands. Christopher Columbus was actually laughed at as a nutcase for wanting to go west.

>>11561271
It doesn't matter what the reasoning in the past was, only the results of colonizing new lands

>>11561276
But it's being applied to going to a dead planet on the hopes we might terraform it.

>>11561177
this
give a poor person $100 and they'll buy a bunch of garbage

>>11561256
I-it's still a close race, guys, half a year is not that long in the scheme of things. . .

>>11561289
And the alternative is?

It's not just about habitable space even if terraforming doesn't work out. Maybe space colonies work, maybe propulsion can be revolutionized. It's the ability to mine planets, moons, asteroids etc for materials. Physics and cosmology are tied at the hip and mutually benefit from discoveries.

You can spend a small fraction of your economy on the long game, make slow incremental progress, and it makes a difference one day or it doesn't. But we know something is going to cripple or eradicate humanity on earth some day. It seems that living on a blue dot in a black abyss that's trying to kill you entails that you do the best you can, who gives a shit about uncertainty

>>11561298
That's why they're poor. These "stimulus" checks coming to people in the US will probably go straight to shit like TVs and bling.
I work with a piece of trash that already picked out a new set of rims for his car, but his power bill is behind, yet he doesn't care because it won't get shut off right now.

>>11561193
The engineers told them that it was fucked and shouldn't fly
Managers forced it through anyhow because delays would hurt their careers

>>11561346
Society has always had undesirables
they just usually died in war and didn't get free money to breed like rats

>>11561402
Then those engineers got fired.

>>11560341
I reiterate, the FAA does not care. If you convince them that the risk to other air traffic and people on the ground is minimal, they will happily let you fly in any deathtrap you want.

>>11560510
It's especially funny when you've got the two biggest spenders in private space interested in climate change mitigation. Elon's pushing electric cars, battery infrastructure, and solar- while Jeff Who went up on stage talking about earth one day being "zoned residential and light industry" due to heavy industry getting moved to space.

But no, idiots go REEEEE because they have no foresight and can't process long-term benefit. Worse, they're already riled up, so when you bring up that satellites are the only way we're able to model the climate as well as we can, they ignore you because they just want to be mad.

>>11561436
once I get my masters and land a big bucks job I'mma buy an ultralight gyrocopter

>>11561289
We don’t need to terraform anything. A nice arcology is good enough

>>11561346
> These "stimulus" checks coming to people in the US will probably go straight to shit like TVs and bling.

Luxuries make life better. In a capitalist society in which poor people can actually buy luxuries, they buy them as much as they can. Makes their brains emit good chemicals.

>>11561436
this is completely unprotected from enemy fire

>>11561346
>>11561582
Newports and 40s.

>>11561133
You don't even have to ask what if, you can just look at China. One of their emperors threw a tantrum and ordered their entire fleet burned in the 15th century. 500 years later they were a pathetic backwater that got their shit pushed in by the West.

Shitpost Starship was a successful failure. The upper stage did not ignite and Pepe Gagarin did not make it to the moon. The recovery system did not deploy, but believe it or not, this fucking tank piloted the ship without wings all the way down and survived the crash landing.

>>11561642
right after liftoff

>>11561642
Make him a tiny medal.
A true hero of the workers.

>>11561647
Kek. Will we get to see the full video?

>>11561687
Yes I'll make it into a webm

>>11561692
Use sound and put it on /wsg/.

>>11561642
>>11561647
>>11561692
Based.
Keep up the good work!!!

>>11561642
Here you go, Pepe.

>>11561698
this

>>11561436
Paramotors are very safe and you still can’t fly over any inhabited areas

>>11561582
Maybe I'm wired differently. I like luxuries and such, but paying my mortgage and utilities to have a home to comfortably live in far exceeds a new TV or other non essential wants.
No point in a 70" flat screen if the power is shut off.

*ahem*
Where are the Boeing shills that tried to sling mud at me when I suggested that /sfg/ chads buy TSLA shares at $420?

Mars 2022 funding secured.

>>11561765
Safe as in you're unlikely to just randomly crash out of the sky but can glide and land safely on some nearby lawn when your piece of junk motor fails. Still people won't like paragliders randomly landing on their lawns or getting entangled on their power lines.

>>11561346
>straight to shit like TVs and bling.
>>11561602
>Newports and 40s.
lotto

>>11561402
>management doesn't listen to engineers warnings of problems
>bad thing happens
>blame engineers
>blame the lack of an abort system that was impossible with the compromised design
every time

>>11559880
Plus the coast phase where it continued to stream Earth views

>>11561794
holy crap

>>11561794
>>11561837
Funding for my 2030 trip to Mars? Secured
Lifetime supply of genetically engineered catgirls? Secured.

>>11561837
>>11561794
Musk is a mad genius, converting part of Tesla to producing ventilators is a 5 dimensional chess move to start recovering stock value before a global pandemic has peaked, let alone been brought down from crisis levels.

>>11561794
I really need to get into buying and selling stocks.

>>11561798
Yea safe as in literally nothing bad can happen because the thing falls like a feather
If the FAA wasn’t run by Jews they would allow people to fly them over cities
Imagine commuting to work in hour paramotor, no gay traffic jams for you
Just direct as the crow flies 40 mph, except for those days that the wind fucks you

>>11561953
Paramotor hangers when?

>>11561929
Well TSLA is such a weird example because it has the biggest gap in public perception versus reality, making it pretty easy to profit off of. That gap will eventually close as it did for similar disruptive companies that a lot of the public thought would never be profitable, such as Amazon.

Most other stocks are very hard to call the direction of and the average person would be better off just putting their money in index ETFs which return around 7% annually on average. That doesn't seem like a lot but it's compounding. If you had $5,000 and added $5,000 every year for 20 years with a 7% return, you would have 238k.

>>11561977
How do ETFs work?

>>11561983
take a piece of paper, and fold it in two. Then stick a pencil through it

>>11561983
It put it simply, they are a basket of a bunch of stocks or similar products put together in something that trades just like a stock would. They are like a mutual fund but with lower fees because they are not as actively managed. Index ETFs specifically try to match the performance of an index, such as the S&P 500 index, which measures the performance of 500 large publicly traded companies in the US. Basically, instead of trying to beat the market, meaning get a higher return than an index, which most professional money managers cannot do, a lot of investors are now trying to match the market performance and come out ahead because of lower fees.

The only problem with this is that it's not guaranteed that the market as a whole will continuously go up like it has for a very long time in the US, but you don't have a lot of options when it comes to investments with a reasonable return. Nearly everyone's retirement fund has a lot of exposure to the market and they'll be fucked in that situation.

>>11562015
Interesting. I'll look further into it, thanks anon.

>>11562040
No problem. You can get almost the same return as index ETFs with a good robo advisor service, but they have higher fees. Regardless of the route you take, it's good to have control over your investments and understand the process behind them. I managed to get out of the market before Coronavirus tanked it whereas most other investors are still down significantly because they didn't have enough insight or control.

>>11561929
go to /biz/, /smg/ is nice. Just please don't post for 1 month, too many newfags there.

Are there any pictures of the design differences between starship prototypes?

>>11562179
In the last thread.

>>11561259
Is probably not the gpu but DoD military grade software engineering.
I've never worked with software as shit as military stuff, they can somehow manage to make guis that look like a 90s BBS run slow on a top of the line pc.

>>11562191
DoD contracts go to whomever gives the biggest bribe to the right guy, not to the competent

>>11561794
Finally. I bought "the dip" 3 days before the recession hit and been holding ever since.

>>11561837
That shit was over 900 once a month ago.

>>11561953
I'll fucking shoot you if you violate my airspace. Imagine thousands of paraniggers overhead at all times

>BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

all fucking day

>>11562276
kek

>>11561794
I wish I had bought more, picked up 4 shares at $475 a week or so ago. Glad I didn't try to hold out for sub $450 a pop.

>>11562279
Sorry I’m busy flying faggot, gotta deliver the papers at 5 am

>>11559936
>our project management is a disaster, please give us money so we can keep employing our project managers

50 years ago this hour, Apollo 13 blew up.

>>11562451
So lets talk about a KINO way to get in the mood fo this.
The tom hanks movie would be a good start right?

>>11562451
Need Another Seven Astronauts

>>11562504
Apollo only carried 3 at a time.

>>11562489
It's pretty good but the real-life, real-time kino is better than the manufactured tension
https://apolloinrealtime.org/13/

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=47144.0;attach=1625738;image

>>11561167
1% of US GDP would be around 220 billion dollars. NASA's budget is around a tenth of that.

>>11562504
retard

>>11562574
>I FUCKING LOVE NASA

>>11562585
i'm not sure what you're getting at but they didn't loose a single astronaut on apollo 13, you seem to be confusing it with the two shuttle disasters (like a retard would)

>>11562585
To be fair, Apollo 13 was due an unfortunate accident rather than the egregious management of Challenger and Columbia. One could almost consider Apollo and post-Apollo NASA as two separate agencies.

>>11562590
>Defending incompetent government agency that set back manifest destiny by more than half a century

>>11562600
am i? when? enlighten me on that one

>>11562604
Deflect harder

>>11562613
i'v not defended nasa a single time in any of my posts, i've just laughed at you for thinking people went to the moon in a space shuttle

>>11562616
That's not what I thought, said or implied you absolute smoothbrain.

Enough fighting. Post rocketpunk art.

>>11562649
>multi-decker space rocket planes
MUH DICK

>>11562651
>tfw no space PanAm
What would the space version be called? Trans Cynthia (TranCynth)?

>>11562451
>>11562510
big boom in around 20 minutes

>>11562655
starship needs a normal cockpit window instead of that giant wall of glass they can't possibly do. Those slam pig planes look sexy as fuck

As for a view, quit being a bitch and offer commercial spacewalk.

>>11562558
Oh this I'm retarded. It's 1 percent of federal budget because why would it be anything else

Houston, we've had a problem.

>>11562651

Maybe this is off-topic but what’s the explanation for the dominance of matter over antimatter in the universe?

>>11562824
There isn't one.

>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CANT JUST TEST CHEAP DESIGNS WELDED IN AN OPEN FIELD YOU NEED TO SPEND 5000 BILLION DOLLARS CAREFULLY DESIGNING AND ENGINEERING EVERY COMPONENT

Haha prototype go boom

>>11563002

>>11562727
Last time it was actually 1% was in the 90s, currently 0.48%
It's been hovering around and just below half a percent for the last decade.

Luv sabre
Luv skylon
Luv Tim
Luv Sutherland

Simple as.

>>11562723
It doesn’t need a front facing window at all

>>11563139
It’d be cool so it should be done

>>11563146
Its just an unnecessary piece to go wrong.

>>11561166
>borg
>Everyone is cared for and housed.
And sacrificed if convenient because as single entities they have no importance at all.

>>11561455
>heavy industry getting moved to space.
Heavy industry makes heavy things not for the sake of it but to be used here on earth.
Unless you find a magical cheap transportation it makes no sense.
The only possible exception could be energy production because you could beam that to earth,
but it's still an unproven technology.

>>11559869
It's fun to see SpaceX fans get so tilted when reality contradicts their expectations.
I get a feeling we'll be seeing a lot more of it in the coming years.

>>11559876
>New Glenn directly competes with SLS
lol
>>11559929
>"what is operational complexity, technological readiness, crew-rating, and minimum LOM and LOC figures? why won't the trained rocket scientists at NASA just listen to my internet armchair engineering!?"

>>11560369
based and schedulepilled

>>11560476
>another zoomer who didn't live through columbia or challenger

>>11559847
>FH has the potential to be the workhorse of Artemis
FH already got picked to be the workhorse of Gateway.

>>11561794
>"The stock market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solevent."

>>11563466
No, Anon. If SpaceX doesn't literally get every element of Artemis, it's a USELESS PORK JOBS PROGRAM!

>>11562510
>https://apolloinrealtime.org/13/
wow, this is really well put together.

>>11563466
>Gateway
it's too bad Gateway is DoA

>>11559792
I realized that with my third KSP "orbital" rocket

>>11563139
>>11563148
every manned spacecraft in history had a window and Starship will be no exception.

>>11563695
there's a difference between a cockpit window and the one planned for Starship. Knowing how willing Musk is to cut things at the first sign of resistance, I have no doubt the huge window will be one of the first things to go.

>>11563625
https://apolloinrealtime.org/
There's also 11 and 17

>>11563462
oh no a handful of cunts died

Minimum thousands will die in the early stages of space colonisation and exploration.

HURF A DURF WE CANT HAVE ONE PERSON DIE EVEN IF IT COSTS 100000 BILLION DOLLARS

Get fucked

>>11563678
Well, I'm not disagreeing with you on that.

SpaceX was a bastard child of NASA

>>11561028
just wear a hat lmao

>>11563678
>knowing this little

>>11563736
>thinking the public will support this
again, clearly did not live through challenger or columbia

>>11562510
god damn, thanks anon

>>11563736
>hundreds will die!
>thousands

>>11562510
impressive, very nice

>>11563888
the public does not give a fuck about space or dead astronauts

>>11563888
Different times though.
If we're talking about bases with hundreds of people a few casualties is going to be quite different from a crew of astronauts hyped as national heroes on a much publicized mission.

>>11564046
>the public does not give a fuck about space
true
>or dead astronauts
false. This is the only time they do care about space.

Reminder we would be starting this week the return leg and bringing home an icy 500 tonne asteroid back into lunar orbit if anyone actually cared.

>>11564067
if you can get to that point without getting shut down before the, sure, maybe
but the first time someone dies on a private spacecraft there will be a regulatory response

>>11564067
this, you have to keep safety standards ridiculously high until theres enough people up there that it can be statistics

>>11564074
>false. This is the only time they do care about space.
This. Most people don't care about space flight unless something blows up. They could live their life not thinking about it at all until a rocket fails and all of a sudden they take great pride in space flight and are appalled by how terrible their nation is at it. Just look at the Antares failure.

>>11564088
That still means having safety standards ridiculously high.
Let me give an example: If a spacecraft has a 1 in 270 odds for loss of crew (very good for a spacecraft), that would still be roughly 10,000 times higher than the accident rate of airliners (odds of 1 in 3,000,000).

>>11564097
Hell, NASA only exists because the US got all pissy about the Soviets being better than them in something.

>>11564117
if you can get 270 succesful crew flights to mars youre fucking done, that means you have at least 20 people living there, no one is gonna cancel a manned program after that, and no one wants to be the one who closes the "america #1 hardonforliberty.jpg mars freedom settlement #1"
specially when the chinese and french are setting up their own,

because once everyone gets a hold on starship style reusable rockets its sci fi time babyi1

>>11564130
Chink yes, frogs doubt. We're too busy fucking ourselves over here in yurop to be mars-colony relevant in the next 50 years.

>>11564088
Another issue with starship is that sticking the landing is a crucial step. When a falcon 9 crashes no one loses sleep because it was just a way of saving money, but starship crashing on landing is a failure of the primary mission if there is crew on board, they'd all die. Starship is probably gonna be a cargo vessel for a while. Maybe they can dock a Crew dragon to use as a life raft and reentry vehicle, so they only need to make sure that the starship won't explosively depressurize.

>>11564086
>but the first time someone dies on a private spacecraft there will be a regulatory response

All regulations must go. They harm the economy.

>>11564166
enjoy dying because there's glass in your food

>>11564167
If you don’t make it, you didn’t deserve to live anyway.

>>11564147
I don't think anyone even Musk himself is considering a crewed Starship within 2 years.

Green text your ideal launch system for delivering civilian passengers and g-sensitive cargo to LEO.

>scramjet assisted air launch to orbit spaceplane launched from massive blended wing body mothership
>mothership is powered by 6 GE90 turbofans modified with afterburners for launch maneuver.
>spaceplane attached to mothership's back which is carried to around 35,000 ft taking off from a conventional runway without afterburners
>mothership may spend several hours cruising to desired latitude for launch insertion allowing it to operate from almost any commercial airport at any latitude in the world
>when launching orbiter, the mothership turns on its afterburners boosting itself from 35,000 to 50,000 ft from Mach 0.8 to 1.2
>orbiter activates scramjets once mothership's speed settles at just above Mach 1, then it detaches itself and begins pre-orbital burn
>once orbiter reaches 90,000 ft at around Mach 5 it switches from scramjets to aerospike engines, which share exhaust nozzles, closing off the leading air intakes and begins injecting LOX into the combustion chamber
>both the scramjets and aerospike engines burn liquid methane but the scramjets run without LOX injection
>rides aerospike motors to orbit and then again for deorbit
>after reentry near the end of its glide slope, the orbiter extends internally stowed conventional wings that allow far more conventional, slower landing approaches without parachute braking
>wings have simple geometry (i.e zero sweep when extended, modest front taper, high aspect ratio, plain flaps or single slotted fowler flaps) and are stored internally inside the orbiter's SR-71-like aerodynamic chines, rather than externally such as in fighter jets like the F-14

IMO air launch to orbit should become the brim (except for extremely large payloads, 500 tons or more) because it eliminates the need for spaceports as the carrier plane can use most of the world's airport infrastructure.

>>11564139
>>11564130
more realistic starship clone made by europe+russia joint endeavour

>>11564200
unironically starship. that's the optimal solution, it's what they got at after the tops most toppest experts analyzed objectively all possible variables via science. theyre gonna pour millions on dolalrs into it and you think they didnt use the calculable via science and math best choice???!?!??!

>>11564200
>Sea
>Dragon
>Heavy

>>11564200
>eliminates the need for spacesport

>a trillion moving parts and failure points
>noticeably more expensive than reusable rocketry.

ok, your ideal system has a lot of parts that can go wrong, its gonna cost like a shuttle to put 100tons into orbit, and any of those airplanes or pieces must fly. they can take of from any airport in the world provided they have an ultra specialized detachment of army engineers waiting and a myriad of ultra expensive equipment that is only found at spaceports .
but hey, 500k to orbit on a starship+2k for the airplane ticket to the spacesport is shit, right? you have to wait 10 more hours to get to space!

>>11564219
>>11564219
youre like a little baby

ur-700 heavy for the win

>>11564200

The carrier plane would need to be fuckhuge. Even with folding wings it would barely fit in infrastructure for the biggest commercial jets (A380, 747-8).

>>11564261
Antanov an225 the biggest plane on Earth does 200 tonnes max and it can only land a few places.
It's simply impractical if you want to scale up.
starship 5000t

Why don’t we make a rocket that’s 100,000 tons?

>>11564227

So it actually WOULD make launches cheaper?

>>11561166
Not to dispute that Anon's gf has a great sense of humor but canonically you're wrong on almost every count. You could argue putting everyone's heads in jars like Futurama would be a utopia by such decrepit reasoning, and even that would be less horrific than getting assimilated and being a drone.

>>11564373
But being part of a machine group mind sounds cool

>>11562824
We think it may have something to do with the weak force, but we don't know for sure yet. Need bigger colliders, please give us more shekels oy vey

>>11564207
Imagine a Chinese starship clone. 3300t of hypergolic propellant detonating over a village.

>>11564403
not going to lie, if you got a good enough engine for it a hypergolic starship wouldn't be a bad LEO lifter

>>11564200
>ideal launch system
If it involves a crew, here's my retarded idea from a few threads back but more sophisticated.
>18m starship with decoupler between the habitable fairing and tanks goes into orbit
>SpaceX made inflatable sections and trusses are brought into orbit by cargo 18m starships
>modified 18m decouples and docks with the stacked inflatable sections
>inflatable sections inflate and trusses are added to keep the ship from wobbling badly
>9m crewed starships dock and bring people into the mothership
>the mothership goes to a different planet
>9m starships take a few people and detach from mothership to land on said planet

>>11564182
Yeah, I mean it would be nice to even see a full SS/SH cargo stack flying by then. I just think getting starship crew rated at all is gonna be a bitch, so many things you would need to get right. I expect quite a bit of kinks with the landing, it's quite a bit different from falcon, and they still have issues with falcon 9 landings. So the capsule would a nice work around, maybe you could even have some kind of ferry system, where they keep a crew starship in orbit with refueling and exchange of passengers happening with tanker starships and crew dragon respectively. Basically the fastest possible way to get crew on a starship while minimizing risk.

>>11564358
The heavier the rocket the more fuel you need to put it into orbit, diminishing returns past a certain point.

>>11564461
>getting starship crew rated at all is gonna be a bitch
Rating is only needed for NASA crew. For that there's the Dragon series.
>and they still have issues with falcon 9 landings
Sure, the ones where they push the envelope and there's not a lot of fuel left. Sure, there have been a few mechanical problems: an engine out, a grid fin losing hydraulics, but it's the ones where they come in hot that they have problems with.

>>11564407
>Chinese
>Good enough engine

>>11564200

Imma add to this.

Let's say commercial space travel truly takes off in the late 2020's / early 2030's, analogous to the renaissance of air travel in the 1930's. And a demand for rotating torus habitats becomes apparent, notably for an ISS replacement and a prototype orbital base for the US Space Force. Because of their size (upwards of 200 meters across) the torus must be modular with segments prefabricated on earth and joined together in orbit. The average segment may be 30 meters long and 8 meters across and weigh approximately 100 tons.

What kind of launch systems would be the best way to deliver these segments into orbit? Giant-ass rockets similar to the abandoned Sea Dragon project?

>>11563457
The only leg you have to stand on is operational complexity, and that only consists of "boo hoo assembling craft on orbit is haaaaard." Bullshit.

>>11564418
you're a dumbass
>>11564498
they've had good luck with hypergolics

>>11564514
make it shorter and you've described the perfect Starship payload

>>11564523
>they've had good luck with hypergolics
You have to do something very ambitious or very stupid to have problems with hypergols.

>>11564461
That's true and all but they nailed Starhopper (almost) flawlessly first time. They have this landing stuff really worked out or they wouldn't have started and we're talking ground landings not on the rolling sea. I'd actually be surprised if they don't nail it.

>>11564200
The sabre engine is what your looking for.
SSTO space plane, lifting capability wont be high, but enough to carry a couple of dozen passengers and it will be safe.
Apparently the guys behind skylon&sabre have made a breakthrough with a pre cooler for the engine and now they are fairly certain they can make it work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbsPEyREZZQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARjmgZWG7Mk (the real interview starts around 12 minutes, the first 12min is kind of cringe)

In my opinion the future will be starship type heavy cargo lifters combined with much safer SSTO planes with sabre engines for human transport.

>>11564569
>SABRE SSTO spaceplane
>safer
no

>>11564363
No.

>>11564418
How to increase transportation costs for no benefit.

>>11564471
No, you get diminishing returns by trying to get higher velocities by stacking kick stages that are all the same size.

If you made a Falcon 9 twice as heavy, with twice the thrust per stage and everything else equal, it'd put twice as much payload into orbit. Scaling rockets bigger (meaning their diameter, to increase total mass) has a direct 1:1 effect on scaling up payload mass to orbit. If you built a rocket that weighed 100 tons and could put up one ton of payload, and then scaled the rocket to weigh 100,000 tons, it would be able to put up 1000 tons of payload.

In actuality, you actually get a small but real improvement in payload mass fraction as you scale rockets to be larger, because aerodynamic drag forces don't scale up at the same rate as the rocket's thrust (a rocket that weighs 100 times as much will only get maybe ten times the drag on ascent, increasing efficiency overall). Also, building a rocket that is way larger makes it more practical to design it to have a better structural mass wet-dry ratio, which directly impacts both maximum payload and maximum imparted velocity, ie stage delta V.

Simply put, in terms of rocket vehicle technology, bigger is literally always better.

Would it be more practical to have a space station be around, on, or in a large asteroid (assuming that a rotating section for living gravity is needed)?

For smaller asteroids that aren't rubble piles, having the station be fixed in the rock and then have the whole asteroid spin makes the most sense. However, the issue becomes more tricky for larger asteroids as those would require huge amounts of energy and time to spin up. Energy and time that could've been better spent placing the station elsewhere. Having the station orbit the asteroid is the simplest option, but station keeping propellant costs may be prohibitive in the long term. Having the station be attached to the asteroid (either directly or via a tether) and then have a separate rotating section could work, but the joints between the rotating and non-rotating sections can sap rotational energy and thus require respinning. This respinning cost may be prohibitive too depending on the size of the station.

Thoughts, /sfg/?

>>11564615
none of the above
next question

>>11564514

Science fiction fails to address the issue of balancing the torus. The entire habitat may wobble if the weight inside is not distributed properly.

>>11564487
Fair, but private citizens aren't gonna want to take on a massive risk either, a failure is gonna mean a lot of blowback and a halt for at least 6 months while spaceX figures out what went wrong. Obviously the crew configuration is the quickest way to get the most amount of people into orbit, but it's obvious getting the landing down reliably is gonna be hard. This is a way to get crew on without having a mass casualty event that draws regulation and the public ire every 50 launches. Especially if these are gonna have crews of 100. The only really feasible reason to do this though is for maybe a rendezvous with the moon, like an apollo 8 style mission. Maybe a way to make yousuck happy.

>>11564615
Asteroids are held together by gravity, if you tried to spin them up to simulate something Earth-like they'd fly apart.

>>11564200

How would this include a launch abort capability?

>>11564514
>the torus must be modular with segments prefabricated on earth and joined together in orbit
Why? Just launch rolls of steel/aluminum/whatever that max out the payload to orbit and weld your structures together using that feed stock. Electron beam welding is ideal for space, it produces minimal heat and can produce extremely deep welds (multiple inches thick) with extreme consistency. So, launch rolls of metal, unspool and cut sections to be welded into rings to be welded into barrels, and construct your ring station that way. Now you are only limited in terms of barrel diameter by what your orbital construction equipment can handle.

Prefab habitats and modules need only be launched enough times to put together a relatively small (2000 ton) zero G station that serves as a materials drop off point, warehouse, and factory for building the rotating station. It'd probably be a good idea to use a low orbit with some drag, enough to deorbit debris quickly but not enough to affect the very large and heavy factory station too much (because square-cube law works for drag effects too). First thing the modular station should build should be an open ended 'shroud' that encloses the machinery that cuts and works metal, to limit debris production in general and allow the station to boost itself up to a more stable orbit (because during construction of the big ring it's going to act like a big sail/aerobrake otherwise). Then it's a matter of building the ring tube, traversible spokes, and center hub, boosting it even higher, and spinning it up to produce a G field that the workers inside can use while furnishing the interior. Meanwhile the orbital factory can make more rings that can be boosted up and attached directly to the original ring, making the station significantly longer without changing the diameter.

This is all pretty far away of course but in my opinion a really big rotating space station isn't really needed in the next few decades anyway.

>>11564569
Why do people think an ultralight metal balloon with 4% structural and payload mass fraction that can barely scrape by the minimum delta V to achieve orbit, coated in the minimum TPS layer necessary to allow it to return to Earth without burning up, would be safer than a far more robust two stage to orbit vehicle? Makes no sense.

>>11564615
>For smaller asteroids that aren't rubble piles
We've never found any asteroids that aren't rubble piles. Even comets appear to be loosely fused boulders of ice and rock grains, and covered in layers of dust which form while the object is in that magical zone were it's warm enough for ice to sublimate but not so warm that the rate of sublimation causes the dust to be blown away.

We will never, NEVER, have stations attached to asteroids that spin to produce gravity. First of all, you need a very remarkably monolithic asteroid to make that even possible without it tearing apart, secondly even the best candidate asteroids will invariably be coated in millions of tons of loose rock at least, which will fly off into huge dust and debris clouds once spun up, and thirdly even a completely monolithic asteroid, literally just one big rock, even if it had no cracks, would not be able to withstand the force of being spun fast enough for the attached station to experience 1 g, because rock's tensile strength is too weak.

Stations won't have any problem with holding propellant, in fact there's no real reason why a large space station couldn't have as much delta V as a good chemical rocket stage, simply because if we have the technology to build 200 m wide or greater rings/cylinders as pressurized habitats, we can do the same thing and fill those volumes with propellant instead. Big well-shielded spinning habitats could approach mass ratios of 90% or even 95% propellant, simply because of the square-cube law. They may have slow accelerations, sure, but if you're literally moving your entire city with you and all your farms, you've got time. Fuck it, fly all the way out to Neptune and claim Triton for your own, and use its ices and minerals to make more habitat ships, why not?

>>11564615
If we can do anything significant in space, energy must be cheap, and if somehow we brute forced expanding into space with expensive energy anyway, just by being in space energy becomes cheap, because the Sun always shines and solar power actually becomes a superior option to almost everything in almost every situation. Spinning docking port sections on the ends of rotating habitats up and down to allow shipments into the station without having to rotate the vehicle that is approaching won't be cost or energy prohibitive whatsoever.

>>11564569
lol sabre has to get to several times the speed of sound WITHIN THE ATMOSPHERE, it will put materials very VERY close to their theoretical limits, if anything goes wrong, 95% of the mass of the aircraft will be instantly turned into plasma by friction alone. no escape vehicle possible, even the space shuttle had some stages in which you could escape.

>>11564628
Wobbling effects from mass concentrations get stronger the further from the plane of rotation the mass is relative to the overall diameter. Therefore, if you have a very wide torus you minimize the wobbling effects. Also, if you want to, you can have active mass distribution systems that move weights closer in and further out from the plane of rotation to eliminate wobbling altogether. Finally, the brute force method is to simply have two rotating tori attached via their axles spinning next to each other like wheels on a bike. Any wobbling instabilities will be dampened and cancelled simply by the material strength of the frame attaching the spinamathings. This arrangement is stable enough that you don't need to worry about making the radii of the tori very large relative to their thickness anymore, and in fact can build them to be very long rotating cylinders attached at both ends by that strong-arm frame. This gets you a bigger single habitat volume per spinamathing, but it also lets you cluster many many habitats close together into one super habitat, limited only by the need to be able to radiate waste heat from each habitat into space.

You can come up with a lot of funky designs too, for example there's no reason why you couldn't have a mega habitat where each cylinder was arranged as a spoke in a buckyball structure, connected to zero-g hubs at their ends, all surrounding a single gigantic sphere of propellant (or nested spheres if you're using bipropellants of any kind, for example two chemicals or a nuclear fuel and an inert propellant for modifying thrust and Isp). A mass fraction of 99% propellant could be achievable with a design like this, given a large enough diameter inner tank, even using low density propellant like liquid hydrogen. Even modern rocket engine technology (hydrolox at 465 Isp, achieved in the RL-10) would give this spacecraft a delta V budget of over 20 km/s, and NTR would get it >40 km/s. Acceleration would be low, though.

>>11564684
>We will never, NEVER, have stations attached to asteroids that spin to produce gravity.
What about loosely attaching the station to the asteroid so that the station can rotate freely without having to spin up the rock?

>>11564498
>>11564523
but bad luck with their upper stages. Two of the last three launches have failed!

>>11564762
for what purpose? You're just adding meaningless technical challenge to a fairly straight forward design for no reason.

>>11564762
Why the fuck do you want artificial gravity? I want to fly around

>>11564775
>>11564777
For example a station that is tasked with extracting materials from an asteroid. There would be people working there and they would need a place with gravity to live in.

>>11564773
2/3 isn't "bad luck", that's a design flaw.

>>11559563
THe industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

>>11564800
>2/3 isn't "bad luck"
Correct.

>>11564788
Why would you need to live in a place with gravity? Just sleep in a sleeping bag thingy like they do on the ISS

>>11564788
You don't need to be physically attached though, you can just be nearby.
You can move materials and people (robots more likely) from the center of rotation to the asteroid easily.
You have to change the planetoid mindset.

>>11564806
Yep. It let people like you shitpost on the internet, among other things.

>>11564806
>I want 7.8 billion people to die and for the infant mortality rate to be 50% lol

Primmy posters should be ignored like flatheads.

>>11564693
>Spinning docking port sections on the ends of rotating habitats up and down to allow shipments into the station without having to rotate the vehicle that is approaching won't be cost or energy prohibitive whatsoever.
I'm trying to visualize this in my mind and I just can't.

>>11564913
I think he meant something like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3oHmVhviO8 except the docking port isn't spinning. Think less rotating barrel, and more spinning wheel with a stationary axle.

>>11564886
>You have to change the planetoid mindset.
What do you mean by that exactly?

>>11564963
he means that outside of Earth, there is really no reason to attach yourself to a celestial body. It's not like any other suitable body has a magnetosphere or 1G or 1 atmosphere of pressure—all the same challenges exist. If you can solve all those problems, it's easier, more cost efficient and more useful to build a space station.

>>11564684
the rotating section of the station doesn't have to be attatched to the asteroid, just embedded inside it for the radiation protection and proximity.

>>11564994
Operations would still be more practical when closer to critical resources. Not just in terms of energy time and infrastructure required for transportation, but also for security and enforcement of claims. Being on top of such resources would be ideal in this case.

>>11565012
not really. You have to understand that in space the absolute distance between objects is not the critical measurement of effort. And it's just a ball of mud, you don't need to protect that any more than the sludge that comes out of our mines on Earth.

>>11564913
pretty much what >>11564948 said.

Take that exact wheel station, and have a module attached to the hub by a magnetic bearing and a detachable air lock (because a spinning airtight bearing would be a nightmare to deal with). The module severs all connection to the spinning station except the magnetic bearing, and spins down (dumping some momentum into the wheel station). The incoming cargo ferry or whatever docks to the stationary module and drops off its load. The ferry undocks and moves away, and the module takes back that momentum it dumped into the station in order to spin back up. The module re-docks to its own solid connection with the station and cargo is moved inside. This makes the most sense for very very big rotating stations with a lot of mass, where the docking module on the end only takes up a smallish fraction of the total mass.

Oh, and if you don't want to deal with the relatively small changes in rotation rate of the station as the module spins up and down, the module itself could have its own massive fly wheel to dump and store momentum in, so it never needs to put any torque on the station itself.

>>11565004
Why embed into the asteroid when a mere ten meters of shielding thickness is all that is necessary to block 100% of cosmic rays and all micrometeors? It'd be a hell of a lot simpler to build a shell around your station using an asteroid than to try to dig a big enough pit into an asteroid to accomplish the same thing.

>>11564418
Just tether two Starships together by the nose and spin them up. Easy artificial gravity however strong you want it with minimal complexity.

>>11565026
>You have to understand that in space the absolute distance between objects is not the critical measurement of effort
It would still take more effort to transport materials to and from a station thousands of miles away compared to mere hundreds or even tens. Not only that, but a larger spacecraft would be needed to carry the same amount of material farther way. There's also time considerations to take into account. Taking days to move raw materials to a factory isn't ideal. Shorter travels would mean less cost, cheaper products, and more profit.

>And it's just a ball of mud, you don't need to protect that any more than the sludge that comes out of our mines on Earth.
There would still be security considerations, because even if most belters are kind and respectful there would still be plenty of less kind ones. Such as lazy prospectors who take advantage of someone else prospecting an asteroid and start mining where someone has already claimed. Or thieves. Or just malicious spacers who don't want anyone who they can reach to be potentially stronger than them.

>>11565066
Real men would attack stupid miners, kill them,and take everything.

>>11565026
If you're in the asteroid belt it makes sense to hang around one rock that has the largest amount of stuff you need, and send out relatively small vehicles to other asteroids containing other materials as they pass by with very low relative velocity. The delta V required is minuscule, tens of meters per second, which means a 100 ton vehicle could go to another asteroid, pick up several thousand tons of material, and haul it back, with the tug hardly requiring a better fuel mass fraction than a long haul truck (given an Isp in line with modern hydrolox vacuum engines). In fact, tugs with robotic legs could literally 'jump' off of most asteroids while carrying their payloads and get back to the habitat without any other propulsion except a rocket burn to slow down on arrival.

>>11565064
This, it'd let us do missions to anywhere without any muscle or bone wasting (or other zero G health effects), plus Starships are going to be able to dangle from their noses in 1 g anyway.

>>11564948
>>11565050
I think I got it now

>>11564762
How are you going to anchor your station to an asteroid made of rubble, while centrifugal force is pulling it away from the asteroid?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UroFsuQ7eJI&feature=emb_title
So this is what trump's space force will look like?

>>11565252
>human soldiers in space battles
No, the most involved a human would ever get would be by tele-operating drones from a hardened bunker somewhere close enough to disregard light speed communication lag but far enough to not be worried about being attacked personally.

>>11565366
why do schizos always pick the worst fonts

>>11565290
yeah, i posted it knowing that kind of response would come, still think it's funny.

I'm personaly looking more forward to this game:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZJzh687sgU

>>11565421
It's harder for sane people to refute if they can't read the complete argument.

>starlink delayed
ugh

>>11565611
Moved to next week - April 23

>>11564418
>>11564523
>>11564589
>everyone fucking hates the idea
Wow. I thought I made something pretty cool here.

>>11565653
we've called you a retard every single fucking time you posted that dumb shit

>>11565654
That’s mean

>>11565662

>Boeing excluded from American Economic Revival Industry Groups

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-announces-great-american-economic-revival-industry-groups/

holy shit

>>11565663
Anime is dumb

>>11565664
Did boeing stop buying out corrupt politicians or what?

>>11565704
>Cirno
>anime
pick one

>>11565664

>>11565664
Something has happened.

>>11565823
something profound?

>>11564628

Water or mercury ballast tanks.

>>11565653
>big ass space construction project that can't land on Earth OR Mars and must perform propulsive capture wherever it goes
Yeah, it's not cool. Sorry. Orbit to orbit spacecraft will only make sense once we have propulsion efficient enough to offer the same or better performance as chemical+aerobraking. On that note, we'll have orbit to orbit ferries for going to the Moon before we have them for going to Mars, because the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere, and therefore you have less advantage by designing a spacecraft that can aerobrake. The very first orbit to orbit vehicles will probably be built to be used in the asteroid belt, because once you're out there the delta V requirements are minimal and most things don't even have significant gravity at all, let alone an atmosphere. Even the biggest asteroid, Ceres, only requires 540 m/s of delta V for a trip from low orbit to the surface and back, and vehicles lifting off from Ceres only need to be able to accelerate at 0.5 m/s to lift off with a local thrust to weight ratio of 2.

>>11565835
Ballast mass blocks on tracks on the outside of the torus that can move from side to side

>>11565837
Aerobrake on the moon

>>11565849
watch me, pussy

>>11565857
Said anon moments before digging his own grave on the moon from hitting the surface at hyper velocities.

>>11565664
Boing btfo

>>11565744
The boomer bribers died from corona.

>>11565868
aerobraking on Earth has so many advantages
I guess you could do Earth -> LLO -> dedicated surface shuttle -> LLO -> aerobrake at earth

Can you use a planet’s moons to enter an orbit of said planet like you can in KSP? Passing in front of Tylo can slow you down enough to enter an orbit of Jool because, I assume, Tylo pulls you away from the direction in which you’re moving

>>11565905
yes but it's really difficult

>>11565906
Because of timing and planning an interception of a moon massive enough to do the job, I assume?

>>11564806
>he says while browsing the internet

>>11565950
Don’t provoke it it’ll do the spam sequence

>>11565967
these prims are getting advanced

>>11565998
They sometimes post a chain of messages on topics they perceive as relevant to their goofy ideology. It’s the same text and images every time so I assume it’s one person doing it.

>>11566045
Ted is objectively correct.

>>11566055
“It’d be awesome if most people died before adulthood xD”

No one takes you seriously.

radiation doomfags btfo
https://www.marsicehouse.com/

>>11565918
Based on the fact that the biggest moons in the solar system only have about 1/6th of Earth gravity, and therefore aren't very effective for getting a gravity assist off of.
The only moon good for capturing into a system is Titan, because it has a very substantial atmosphere to slam into and let you capture without using propellant.

>>11566080
Perchlorates, the toxic substances they mention, are water soluble lol. Their own reasoning behind their proposal Bs them TFO.
In reality regolith is all you need. Also, 5cm of water aint stopping shit, specifically the shit that doesn't already get stopped by the atmosphere. If you're setting up a rad shield on Mars you need at least a meter's thickness for it to be worth it.

>>11566100
Oh no perchlorates will......do nothing and sit in ice?

>>11566104
Yes, exactly as it would do nothing and sit in regolith. Their logic is flawed because they're trying to solve a problem that isn't real, and their solution doesn't even address the problem they are erroneously trying to solve. This proposal is a failure on literally every level.

>>11566074
That's not the presented case tech kiddie.

>>11566155
Okay. :^)

>>11566126
Ice is cool though